Albany Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Healthcare professionals told us “they meet the needs of the people they care for”.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care plans reviewed were individualised and included people’s preferences. For example, their food choices, how they liked to be spoken to, how they liked to spend their day, who they liked to visit them, what activities they like, or don’t like and who they liked to care for them. However people told us their loved one’s needs were not always being met and reported “they are in bed all day and no-one goes to see them”. The provider did not have a sexual safety policy. Communal areas such as lounges were not always utilised or laid out to encourage socialising or independence in activities.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider had policies promoting people’s choice and control. Staff had completed mandatory training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Standards. Care plans mostly detailed people’s choices where they had the capacity to contribute. Staff told us people had the right to make choices.

We asked people’s relatives if they were involved in drawing up care plans for their family members and reviewing them. Several relatives said they were unaware of any care plan being in place for their family members. This created a risk that people’s needs, their choices and independence might not be fully met.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment and act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We did not observe any people in discomfort or distress, and people told us they were listened to. People’s needs, views and wishes were comprehensively documented in their care plans. Managers told us they monitored people’s call bells; they ensured call bells were in reach of people and that they were responded to appropriately, however there was no electronic call bell monitoring system. One person told us they thought there were not enough carers to give them enough time. They stated, “I feel rushed”. People provided feedback in resident’s meetings that there are not enough staff. Staff also told us they need more permanent care staff; agency staff are not as familiar with people’s care needs. Some people’s relatives also said they did not feel there were enough staff to support the high dependency needs of some of the people such as those who are nursed in bed or those with dementia. Relatives of people who did not have these conditions thought their family members were supported appropriately.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Not all staff have completed training on person centred care. Supervision is not focused on people’s care, and carer learning needs are not always identified. Not all staff had access to recognised and accredited training. The provider’s supervision policy did not state the required frequency of supervision. The provider told us they are implementing a new supervision template, as well as observations to support staff competency. They did not have a process in place for staff to feedback. A new electronic system for staff has been introduced since we inspected.